TIM Sheens came out this week questioning my loyalty to players.
>
Sheens was telling everybody why I should pick Robbie Farah to play against Queensland six months after he wouldn't pick Farah to play against Wales.
>
What's changed in the meantime only he can tell us.
>
Yet the sermon continued.
>
He said that last year I was going to stay consistent through the spine - the halfback, hooker, five-eighth and fullback - and he was now wondering where that went with Jamie Soward and Michael Ennis "out of favour".
>
Michael Ennis hasn't fallen out of favour. He is playing injured and it is affecting his form, but testament to his character he is refusing to stand down so he can continue to help out the Bulldogs.
>
That's highly admirable. What coach wouldn't love that in their player?
>
But what gets overlooked here is that the injury is affecting Ennis' form. Despite his good intentions, there's no reason to think that if the injury is affecting his performance at club level then it won't affect his performance at Origin.
>
If Michael is fit and healthy and playing to where he was at last season does Sheens still want me to pick Michael, or do I fall for the old coach's trick of promoting his boy to strengthen their relationship.
>
Or was Tim's opinion the other day just a way for him cover the Tigers' own issues?
>
You wouldn't see this in Queensland. They stick solid, back their own and support the system.
>
When coaches sit down to pick a football team they select the best players available and write their names down first on the team sheet. When it comes to rep football, it might mean picking a left centre on the right, or a halfback at five-eighth, like they have with Johnathan Thurston.
>
These players have the ability, or capacity, to handle the change needed to fit the balance of the team.
>
We're all after the same thing as coaches. The best possible team.
>
Sometimes it isn't easy.
>
I like Robbie Farah's football and I can use his creativity, unlike his club and Australian coach who didn't think he was up to the standard of playing against the highly rated Welsh.
>
But I'm not about playing mind games with any player, so when I called Farah and Ennis a couple of weeks ago it was to tell them that Danny Buderus was ahead of them at that point. I was letting them know where they stood.
>
Trust me, as a coach they are calls we prefer not to make, but the players needed to know. To me that is being honest and solid, telling them the truth, unlike some coaches who enjoy the mind games.
>
Another player got a similar call and his turnaround in form has just about guaranteed his position.
>
Sheens said we don't have a pick and stick attitude like they do in Queensland or with the Australian team.
>
He pointed to the spine of Queensland and Australia, which happens to be made up entirely of Queensland players, as an example of sticking solid.
>
Thanks, Einstein.
>
Cameron Smith, Billy Slater and Johnathan Thurston will all come into consideration for Immortal status one day, just like Darren Lockyer. Wow, what a difficult combination to stick with. NSW do not have that luxury.
>
Origin is a different brand of football to the NRL. You can't pick a player and be guaranteed his performance will replicate in Origin.
>
It doesn't work that way, so part of it is trial and error, and club form is vitally important.
>
Those three players are tried and tested at Origin, so you can afford to overlook their club form.
>
One of my strengths in life is being loyal and I don't have any regrets for that, although I have learned that this strength has at times been my biggest weakness. Loyalty is a rubbery word in the NRL. So many people use it to fit their own agenda and it gets to a point where they make the word almost meaningless.
>
Loyalty is a bond. It's a trust.
>
To get some loyalty, you have to give some. But in a results-based industry, it also works the other way.
>
When you give your loyalty, you have to get a return. I won't say loyalty only goes so far, but it can't be the over-riding criteria.
>
When I coached the Roosters, I got to the end of 2003, our second consecutive grand final, and Phil Gould called me aside and told me I needed to sack a few players.
>
They were all good players, who had done a lot for the club. I knew they still had some good football left in them, but when I was really honest with myself, I wasn't sure how much good football they had left in them.
>
Gould believed they didn't have much. I thought about it a lot and went against his advice, falling back on the loyalty card, thinking if I was loyal to them they would repay me with their performance.
>
To be honest, it ended up costing me my job. Those players ran out of good football. While that was not their fault, and they gave what they had, it affected our performance and I was the one who had to answer for it.
>
I accept what happened, but I have also learned from it.
I posted my reply in the comment section, I am not gonna re write it but I will say for him to pick Buderus, it would be on reputation alone because we all know Buderus hasn't done anything spectacular to put his hand up for selection. So if he is picking Buderus based on reputation, isn't that him showing 'loyalty' to his 2005 captain? And if so then that shows he hasn't learned from the past when he showed too much loyalty to players.
Also I will stick up for Ennis here but how is Ennis playing injured different to Buderus calling for a rest from City/Country after just 7 rounds into the season? If Buderus needs a rest after 7 rounds then how will he cope in the Origin period? At least Ennis is willing to keep playing.
>
Sheens was telling everybody why I should pick Robbie Farah to play against Queensland six months after he wouldn't pick Farah to play against Wales.
>
What's changed in the meantime only he can tell us.
>
Yet the sermon continued.
>
He said that last year I was going to stay consistent through the spine - the halfback, hooker, five-eighth and fullback - and he was now wondering where that went with Jamie Soward and Michael Ennis "out of favour".
>
Michael Ennis hasn't fallen out of favour. He is playing injured and it is affecting his form, but testament to his character he is refusing to stand down so he can continue to help out the Bulldogs.
>
That's highly admirable. What coach wouldn't love that in their player?
>
But what gets overlooked here is that the injury is affecting Ennis' form. Despite his good intentions, there's no reason to think that if the injury is affecting his performance at club level then it won't affect his performance at Origin.
>
If Michael is fit and healthy and playing to where he was at last season does Sheens still want me to pick Michael, or do I fall for the old coach's trick of promoting his boy to strengthen their relationship.
>
Or was Tim's opinion the other day just a way for him cover the Tigers' own issues?
>
You wouldn't see this in Queensland. They stick solid, back their own and support the system.
>
When coaches sit down to pick a football team they select the best players available and write their names down first on the team sheet. When it comes to rep football, it might mean picking a left centre on the right, or a halfback at five-eighth, like they have with Johnathan Thurston.
>
These players have the ability, or capacity, to handle the change needed to fit the balance of the team.
>
We're all after the same thing as coaches. The best possible team.
>
Sometimes it isn't easy.
>
I like Robbie Farah's football and I can use his creativity, unlike his club and Australian coach who didn't think he was up to the standard of playing against the highly rated Welsh.
>
But I'm not about playing mind games with any player, so when I called Farah and Ennis a couple of weeks ago it was to tell them that Danny Buderus was ahead of them at that point. I was letting them know where they stood.
>
Trust me, as a coach they are calls we prefer not to make, but the players needed to know. To me that is being honest and solid, telling them the truth, unlike some coaches who enjoy the mind games.
>
Another player got a similar call and his turnaround in form has just about guaranteed his position.
>
Sheens said we don't have a pick and stick attitude like they do in Queensland or with the Australian team.
>
He pointed to the spine of Queensland and Australia, which happens to be made up entirely of Queensland players, as an example of sticking solid.
>
Thanks, Einstein.
>
Cameron Smith, Billy Slater and Johnathan Thurston will all come into consideration for Immortal status one day, just like Darren Lockyer. Wow, what a difficult combination to stick with. NSW do not have that luxury.
>
Origin is a different brand of football to the NRL. You can't pick a player and be guaranteed his performance will replicate in Origin.
>
It doesn't work that way, so part of it is trial and error, and club form is vitally important.
>
Those three players are tried and tested at Origin, so you can afford to overlook their club form.
>
One of my strengths in life is being loyal and I don't have any regrets for that, although I have learned that this strength has at times been my biggest weakness. Loyalty is a rubbery word in the NRL. So many people use it to fit their own agenda and it gets to a point where they make the word almost meaningless.
>
Loyalty is a bond. It's a trust.
>
To get some loyalty, you have to give some. But in a results-based industry, it also works the other way.
>
When you give your loyalty, you have to get a return. I won't say loyalty only goes so far, but it can't be the over-riding criteria.
>
When I coached the Roosters, I got to the end of 2003, our second consecutive grand final, and Phil Gould called me aside and told me I needed to sack a few players.
>
They were all good players, who had done a lot for the club. I knew they still had some good football left in them, but when I was really honest with myself, I wasn't sure how much good football they had left in them.
>
Gould believed they didn't have much. I thought about it a lot and went against his advice, falling back on the loyalty card, thinking if I was loyal to them they would repay me with their performance.
>
To be honest, it ended up costing me my job. Those players ran out of good football. While that was not their fault, and they gave what they had, it affected our performance and I was the one who had to answer for it.
>
I accept what happened, but I have also learned from it.
I posted my reply in the comment section, I am not gonna re write it but I will say for him to pick Buderus, it would be on reputation alone because we all know Buderus hasn't done anything spectacular to put his hand up for selection. So if he is picking Buderus based on reputation, isn't that him showing 'loyalty' to his 2005 captain? And if so then that shows he hasn't learned from the past when he showed too much loyalty to players.
Also I will stick up for Ennis here but how is Ennis playing injured different to Buderus calling for a rest from City/Country after just 7 rounds into the season? If Buderus needs a rest after 7 rounds then how will he cope in the Origin period? At least Ennis is willing to keep playing.
